4. The Recognition of Argument
Logic is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the study of argument. This study seeks the development of conceptual understanding side by side with the cultivation of reasoning skill. A bricklayer must learn about trowels, levels, and jointers. He must also develop skill in the use of these masonry tools. Likewise, the student as apprentice logician must learn about syllogisms, premises, and conclusions but if he is to advance as a critical thinker, he must also develop skill in the use of the tools of logic. Grasp and skill do not always progress in tandem but that must be our goal at every stage of this journey. This goal necessitates limiting the quantity of things covered in order to give priority to skill development that demands time for deliberation and careful analysis. On this pathway we can "make haste slowly."
But in which direction are we to go in order to begin this journey? It is essential that we begin with the recognition of argument so that we will know what it is that we are talking about in the first place. It will help us recognize arguments if we make some initial comparisons between logic and some other disciplines of study (cf. the introduction). This enables us to identify arguments within the universe of discourse, both philosophically and theologically. We can also identify a thing by reference to its definition. Furthermore, isolation of its component parts enables argument recognition. Finally, an overview of distinct argument types furnishes models that aid argument identification. Thus in this chapter we will cover 1) definitions, and 2) component argument parts, and 3) types of argument. We begin with definitions.
1A. Definitions
An argument can be defined in three ways: positively, structurally, and distinctively. The structural definition will furnish the basic definition of argument that we will use throughout this course. The remaining two ways are more or less descriptive definitions that put our subject into perspective. Precise definition will enable us to recognize arguments in a precise manner.
1B. Argument defined positively
To argue does not mean quarreling or word battles. Rather, it means to reason reasonably with and for others. Some synonyms are: to prove, justify, draw inferences and make implications.
Also, note that the following dictionary definition of argument is incorrect: "that which is advanced in support or proof" (Webster's New School and Office Dictionary, World Publishing, 1957). To correct this definition we need a structural perspective.
2B. Argument defined structurally
Structurally an argument is a set of statements in which one part is used to prove or justify the other (part of the set). The Webster definition is incorrect because it makes a part into a whole. An argument is not support or proof; it is support or proof put to a specific use with regard to that part of the argument toward which it moves.
We can make three observations about this definition keyed to these three things: set, statement, and proving relation.
1) First there must be a set of at least two statements. Therefore, a single claim no matter how controversial cannot be an argument. Also, note this caution that an "If .... then" expression is not an argument because it is a single statement. To have an argument there must be a set of statements.
2) Second, for a set of expressions to constitute an argument, each expression must be a statement which is an information giving expression that is either true or false. The information given is either correct or incorrect; it either does or does not correspond to reality.
The term "statement" is not equivalent to the term "sentence." We need a distinction here between logic and grammar. "Statement" is being used here as a term in logic. As such it could be but does not have to be a sentence. "Sentence" is, of course, a grammatical term and not all sentences are statements as defined in logic nor are all sentences declarative. For example, note how this works out in the following set of expressions:
All politicians are crooks, therefore, as a politician, he must be a crook.
The first expression, "all politicians are crooks" is a statement because it gives information that is true or false. Whether true or false, it is still a statement. It simply has to be one or the other.
Non-informational sentences like "Go," (a directional sentence), "Wow!" (an emotional sentence), or "How are you?" (a ceremonial sentence) are sentences but not statements since they do not convey information that is true or false.
Also, the expression "as a politician" is not a sentence (as it stands it does not express a complete thought and could not stand alone with a period at the end), but it is a statement; it does give information that is true or false. So, we can have sentences that are not statements and statements that are not sentences. The entire example above is one sentence with many statements within it (thus, the statements are not sentences). Sometimes a sentence is a statement (as would be the case if a period were placed after "All politicians are crooks"); then, of course, the statement is a sentence. If you picture two intersecting circles and use one circle to represent sentences while the other represents statements, then the area of overlap represents sentences that are statements and statements that are sentences. The sections on either side of the overlap will respectively represent sentences that are not statements and statements that are not sentences.
3) Third, the set that is made up of statements must also have a peculiar relationship between the parts of the set in order for it to be classified as an argument. That is, there must be a proving relation or a support relation between the parts of the set. In an argument, one part is the basis or evidence or justification for the other. A proving relation means that one part gives a reason to accept the other part. Thus, it is said that one part "follows from" the other. It is also said that one part "moves down the argument" to the other, that the one implies or can be inferred from the other.
Take special note of the different perspectives suggested by "imply" verses "infer." The former, "imply," suggests the perspective of the speaker or arguer. The latter suggests the perspective of the listener or receiver of the argument. These can be compared with the pitcher/catcher relation of baseball or the writer/reader relation of written communication.
3B. Argument defined distinctively
Distinctively, an argument can be defined by means of how it contrasts with explanation. What is the difference? Explanation tells why something is the case and has no proving element. The glitch is that an explanation may look like an argument as in "The lions do not play in March because the season is over" or "The Redwings do not play in July because the season is over."
These are not arguments. Why do they look like arguments? Why are they not arguments? The use of the word "because" makes each look like an argument. But there is no need or attempt here to prove that the lions do not play in March, or that the Redwings do not play in July. So, these are not arguments. The "because" phrase in these examples simply tells why such and such is the case without trying to offer support.
How may we discern the difference between argumentation and explanation? We can use three rules of thumb.
1) If a point is at issue or there is a disagreement then it is usually an argument and a word like "because" will be an argumentative term; discerning its usage depends on the context. "Because" can be explanatory or it can be argumentative.
2) If the point being made is taken for granted or is common knowledge then it is usually an explanation. That is, the point that is addressed by the "because phrase" is already assumed to be true so it needs no support. Presumably, no one needs proof that the Lions do not play regular games in March. That's a given. What is needed is some explanation as to why that is the case. Here the explanation is related to the fact that the NFL determines the length of the season for regular games. So "because the season is over" is an abbreviated explanation.
To keep things clear, it might help to ask these questions, "What are we trying to do? Are we trying to prove that the Lions do not play in March, or are we trying to simply tell why they do not, given what we already know?"
3) If there is still ambiguity then be charitable. Take the expressions in the sense that makes best sense, giving the benefit of the doubt. Remember, if you argue with an explanation as if it were an argument you may triumph but you only defeat a straw man (an exaggeration or misrepresentation). Explanations may, of course, be challenged but they need to be challenged according to what they in fact are, explanations and not arguments.
2A. Argument parts
Our explanation of argument can be further advanced by looking at the basic nature of the components that together make up the set. There are three component parts of an argument: premise, conclusion, and reasoning indicators.
Premise refers to the reasons, evidence or support offered in the argument (cf. the Webster's misplaced emphasis cited above).
Conclusion refers to the point being made or defended in the argument.
Reasoning indicators are words that point out the premise or the conclusion. Some key examples are "because" which points to premise (assuming it is an argumentative "because" and not an explanatory "because") and "therefore" which marks out the conclusion.
Our explanation of argument parts can be rounded off by considering some "may or may not" features.
Reasoning indicators may or may not be explicit but they must be implicit if it is an argument. Note that in the following example the reasoning indicator is suppressed to a comma: "He's been bad, punish him". The comma contains the "therefore." Things that are implicit are understood from the flow of thought of a given context.
The order of the statements in an argument may or may not be found in logical order in everyday discourse. Grammatical order is very flexible. Logical order is always from premise down to the conclusion.
Premises (or conclusions) may or may not be explicit but they must be implicit if the set in front of us is truly an argument. Consider the following example:
"the bigger the burger, the better the burger" (premise) and "burgers are bigger at Burger King" (premise)
This is an argument, but where is the conclusion? What is the conclusion? We should make special note that missing argument parts are called enthymemes. An enthymeme can be a very powerful way to give expression to an argument. The point of the argument may be taken home by a very direct inference on the part of the listener and serve as a direct basis for action like buying goods from a particular vendor. Or, being enthymatic, the argument may cause greater mental effort and thus embed its details deeper into the mind. In this sense, enthymemes are informative in an ironic way since they teach something by means of missing information. To nail this down, consider the following example:
Because John has two straws. Therefore, John and Bill together have eight straws.
This simple example illustrates the fact that having a missing element causes the reader to figure out how many straws belong to Bill. In more complex arguments, such "figuring" may yield significant understanding, or deepened awareness, of the issues at stake. This has an importance all its own since an understanding of the reasons offered for a belief is surely a first step toward accepting those reasons. A biblical example of a powerfully thought provoking enthymeme is found in Romans 8:31b, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Recall that an "if...then" expression as we have here with the then suppressed in the comma cannot be an argument because it is a single statement. Many things must be inferred here. First, this expression, though a question itself, gives an answer to the question asked in the first part of the verse (31a). Second, we can draw a specific answer that is enthymatically buried in the question, "who can be against us?" The implied answer is that no one can be against us. Third, this implied answer is a conclusion to an argument, that is how it can be drawn from what is stated. Fourth, there is a missing or suppressed premise, namely, "God is for us." This is intuitively discerned in the context by thoughtful reading. The argument is powerful in its brevity. Another example comes from the first recorded words of Christ in Luke 2:41-51. Consider the uniqueness of His relationship to the Father indicated by His use of the word, "my." This informs us 1) that Jesus is one with the Father. He is God the Son who has come to earth on a mission. 2a) Thus, the implication is that the submission of Christ to the Father is a submission between equals and is therefore 2b) the result of an agreement between the members of the trinity. 3) In other words, Jesus at age twelve is well aware that He has come to fulfill His part in the eternal covenant of redemption. These three points unpack some of what is explicitly stated by our Lord (we can return to this later and arrow diagram the section). We can work at drawing out some implications of the fact that these early statements of Christ are prefatory to the events recorded in all the Gospels. Logic here is simply part and parcel of meditative tasting of the honey of the gospel.
3A. Types
In the interest of improving argument recognition, it will be helpful to isolate some argument types. Here we are concerned with their general character and features that cue the presence of some identifiable form of reasoning.
1B. Degrees of certainty
When viewed in terms of the degree of certainty to be secured, an argument may be classified as either deductive or inductive.
Deductive arguments are arguments in which the goal is absolute certainty. If line A is longer than line B and if line B is longer than line C, then line A must be longer than line C (C must be shorter than A).
Inductive arguments are arguments in which the goal is some degree of probability: "If children received the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, is it not all the more likely that they would receive it in the New Testament as a result of the greater grace of the New Covenant?" (Frame, Doctrine 276). The key word in this example is "likely."
2B. Exposing opponent weakness
There are two peculiar argument types that proceed in a manner that is designed to expose the weakness of the opposing position: the reductio ad absurdum and the dilemma.
The reductio ad absurdum, or reductio for short, is an argument that seeks to expose a contradiction in the opponents position. The Latin literally means "to reduce to an absurdity." By this means, the opposing view is shown to be impossible.
The dilemma is an argument that consists of two disagreeable propositions and the necessity that the opponent make a choice between one or the other. The opponent has, we might say, two lemons (di-lemma) on his hands and he has to experience the sour taste of one or the other. An example is the peace initiative in the Balkans as of August 29, 1995 (before the serious NATO bombing of Serb positions on August 30 in response to 47 civilians recently killed in the Bosnian capital by Serb shelling). Here is the dilemma for the US peace initiative which was oriented to the consensus that the Serbian leaders be viewed as war criminals: "If the peace proposal negates the war criminal charges then Bosnia will reject it. If the proposal affirms the war criminal charges then Serbia will reject it. Hence, it is argued that the US peace initiative is doomed to fail."
3B. The "much more" argument
In the a fortiori argument some form of a lesser to greater principle (or greater to lesser) is implied. This principle gives the conclusion an intensified certainty; from knowing one thing we are led to acknowledge another with even more certainty. Consider this argument for capital punishment:
Capital punishment is applicable to cases involving the murder of police officers.
Therefore, it is even more applicable to cases involving presidential assassination.
A fortiori arguments have an enthymatic character built around the lesser/greater principle. Here, the missing element is the assumption that the same crime against persons in authority increases in gravity in a manner proportional to their higher rank. Usually the unstated premise is obvious and when it is granted the argument is very forceful.
Many examples of the a fortiori occur in Scripture (cf. the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 6; Neh. 13.26-27). In the book of Job, Eliphaz says: "If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error, how much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundations are in the dust, who are crushed more readily than a moth!" (Job 4:18-19). The Job passage uses the unstated (enthymatic) notion of superior to inferior rank to argue greater certainty of accountability. If angels are held to account then how much more will humans be held to account (with the implied: especially you Job, O impatient one, 4:2, who is not innocent, 4:7, but a foolish accountable sinner, 5:3).
As an example in philosophical discussion, Plantinga uses this form in countering the problem of evil argument used against belief in God. He reasons that the "naturalistic way of looking at the world... has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort; a fortiori, then, it has no place for such a category as horrifying wickedness" (Christian 73).
This argument type also occurs in theological discussion. It is cited as an argument for infant baptism by Frame: "If children received the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, is it not all the more likely that they would receive it in the New Testament as a result of the greater grace of the New Covenant?" (Doctrine 276). From this example, note that types may overlap.
Argument Recognition WS1
1. Define an argument structurally then briefly make three observations about an argument.
2. Grammatically, a statement is usually a declarative sentence. In logic it is:
3. Identify the statements in the following expressions.
a. Sometimes I would like to be 20 years old again, I am 39 years old and have less endurance.
b. We ought to reject Calvin because he believed in predestination.
c. Either the Detroit wins their conference or Minnesota, if Chicago loses to Dallas.
d. Since a fetus is not a person then as mere tissue it has no right to life.
e. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench (Isa 43:2).
f. I now live in the hereafter; I repeatedly go to my garage and find myself asking "what am I here after?"
g. If you love me you will keep my commandments.
4. Explain what logic is in relation to 1) philosophy, 2) ethics 3) your favorite hobby, 4) sky scrapper window washing, and 5) theology?
5. Three parts (not structural observations) of an argument are:
6. Argument or no argument? Where there is an argument underline the conclusion and identify reasoning indicators (RI) and premises (P, P1, P2, etc.). Be able to defend your answer in class discussion (note that the status of many of the examples will be debatable because of the lack of context and because of the context that each reader will intuitively supply).
a. The roof collapsed because the truss timber was green and not cured properly.
b. Since the Detroit Lions won more than half their games last season, then I must come to the contested point that they are a good well-rounded team.
c. Because the trusses are green, we should not trust the usual snow load the roof can carry as claimed by the carpenters.
d. Beware! I am fearless and therefore strong.
e. We must acknowledge either God or evil. Evil exists. God does not exist!
f. The will of God is changeable. For the Lord says (Gen. 6:7): It repenteth me that I have made man. But whoever repents of what he has done, has a changeable will.
g. Butler was a bishop in the Church of England. Therefore, we get much of his philosophy from sermons.
h. Since joining the logic class, Joe has found many arguments in the Bible.
i. Since joining the logic class is a commitment to mental hard work, Joe therefore decided against the course.
j. Since joining the logic class is a commitment to mental hard work, then hard at it may be for you to accept, Joe must be resolved to put forth considerable mental effort.
k. Contrary to what Bill claims, since joining the logic class is a required course at WSU, then Charlie, a recent WSU graduate, had logic or its equivalent.
7. True or False: The use of the words "therefore" and "because" in a set of statements always indicate that that set is an argument. Defend your answer by giving an example.
8. Why are the following examples of a straw man (a fallacy or error in reasoning in which a view is defeated based on its misrepresentation)?
Calvinism does not believe in missions, therefore, it is to be rejected by all devoted Christians.
Since pedo/child baptism includes baptismal regeneration, it is theologically unacceptable.
9. Being technical, what is wrong with the use of the word argument in this sentence: "Voters were seemingly swayed by the argument that abortion should be left as a private matter between a woman and her doctor" (The Forum, from the Michigan Family Forum, Dec. 2000, p. 2)?
Argument Recognition WS2
1. Explain why the following is an argument and why it is an a fortiori argument.
Since God accepted the Gentiles, we must also accept them.
2. Why is the following not an argument? An important observation should be made about this argument, what is it?
The philosopher, Bishop Butler, was a minister. Therefore, we get his philosophy from his sermons.
3. Which of the following are arguments? Why? or why not?
a. You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
b. If Newt is a good Speaker of the House then President Clinton will have his hands full.
5. What enthymeme would complete this argument?
As a police officer, Joe is committed to uphold the law.
6. What kind of arguments are the following and what is wrong with them (be intuitive not necessarily technical)?
Since the poor are given free medical care, then all the more it ought to be given to the rich.
If being baptized once is beneficial, then being baptized many times is all the more beneficial.
Argument Recognition WS3
As best you can determine what is missing in the following examples before looking at the answers given in the More Exercises section on Argument Recognition WS3 Answers.
1. The Gentiles are accepted by God. So, we must accept them.
2. I knew Nixon was involved in Watergate. Only a guilty person accepts a pardon.
3. No man will take counsel, but every man will take money; therefore, money is better than counsel.
4. Everything that was threatened to Adam related to his descendents as much as to him personally. Thus, "a cursed earth" and "liability to death" concern us and our families (Rom 5:12-21, Hodge, Atonement 118).
Argument Recognition WS4
1. Consider an example raised by a student: " If my father provides me with a car then how much more should I expect him to provide me with insurance and gas money to run it." There is a "much more" relationship here, the gift of a car is greater than the insurance and gas money. So what is wrong?
To focus the failure of this argument we must begin with the unstated premise that the gift of a car entails the other gifts. But many a father will provide a car on condition that the children secure their own insurance and gas money.
By contrast, consider the provision of the death of Christ for sinners (Rom. 8:32). If the greatest provision was given then how much more will all the details follow. God gave us his son to bring us to glory. He has done the greater historically at the cross. It is therefore inconceivable that he will fail to give us "all things" that were secured in His death for us, all the things that lead to our inheritance in glory (cf. securing the end includes the means since means are inextricably tied to ends in the outworking of God's purposes; on the car analogy, it is parallel to the point that if Dad provides the car, then he will see to it that all the paper work and transmission of funds are secured as well- we can be sure of this in his promise of the car; if God gave Jesus in death for us, not spared but punished in our stead that we be not punished but have eternal life; then all that is needed for eternal life was secured as well; if we need faith, it was secured; if we need regeneration, it was secured, if we need adoption, it was secured, etc.).
Things are different where the point of need emerges. Truly if the daughter is in critical need or the car gift will be useless, then Dad will step in. God's love gift of the cross meets our needs for dear life. The cross is nullified if "all" does not follow.
2. What kind of argument is being used by Gaffin in my paraphrase below (from Perspectives on Pentecost, p. 111)?
Some claim that prophesying continues until "the perfect comes" (1 Cor. 13:9-10). But the accent is on the product of prophesying, namely knowledge. If the sources of revealed knowledge are in view then inscripturation or the writing of the Bible would be said to continue until the second coming.